• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

intel faster, but why AMD better?

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.

Garfield

Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2001
Location
New Jersey
I would like to have a real technical answer to this question. This isn't an Intel vs. AMD thread. but I want to know what makes AMD perform better. Intel has the hertz, but AMD the benchmarks (in most cases).

So, why is this? Oscillations are oscillations. What makes one type better? Shouldn't cycles (more, in Intels case) determine this kinda thing?

This has always puzzled me and I would like an explanation to this. Thanks!
 

EluSiOn

Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2002
Location
SC, USA
in lame men's term...... compare cpu to car engine....


mhz or ghz is the unit to measure how fast a cpu cycles, like car engine's rpm.

However, performance is measure by bench marks, or a car's horse power...

Both Honda Civic' engine and a BMW M3's engine can rotate at 5000 rpm, but it doesn't mean both engine can produce same amount of horse power.

Like IBM & Motorola's PowerPC G4 CPU, it only runs 1GHZ but it beats Intel's P4 in performance. Like Intel's top server CPU Intel® Itanium® 2 which also running at 1 GHZ. Conclusion: mhz doesn't mean anything.

It is all about chip design. RISC proccessor vs CISC proccess. AMD design is a RISC proccessor which emulates x86 CISC processing.

*RISC: reduced instruction set computing
*CISC: complex instruction set computing

Intel P4 has not yet show its true power as most of application have not yet take the advantage of hyper threading. (like one die but two cpu running) which a cpu can calculate both float point calculation and also integer calculation.

However, if you like CPU design, take a look at IBM & Motorola's design... their G4 has one extra unit which is devote to vector calcuation.
 
Last edited:

OC-Master

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2001
Location
Edmonton, Alberta
Simple!

Clock for clock, the AMD system will always be faster than the Intel system because AMD's current line of CPUs can do 9 intructions per clock cycle where as Intel CPUs do only six intructions per clock cycle!

1 clock cycle = 1Hz 1000Hz = 1KHz 1000KHz = 1MHz 1000MHz = 1GHz


OC-Master
 

{PMS}fishy

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2001
Its cheaper. Really the only reason. You can get a good AMD CPU for $50. If its an Intel I hope you like celerons. :D
 

Arkaine23

Captain Random Senior Evil
Joined
Nov 8, 2001
AMD

Current AMD CPU's have an extra ALU (Arithmetic-Logic Unit) and FPU (Floating Point Unit) by design compared to Pentiums.
 

NookieN

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2002
Location
The West
OC-Master said:
Clock for clock, the AMD system will always be faster than the Intel system because AMD's current line of CPUs can do 9 intructions per clock cycle where as Intel CPUs do only six intructions per clock cycle!

That's a misconception started by AMD. The 6/9 thing is on AMD's website where the compare the features of the Athlon to those of the P4. However they do NOT say 9 instructions per cycle. They distinctly say 9 operations per cycle. Basically, I guess they just counted the exection units on each chip and said "Look, we have 9 they have 6." But the architectures are so different that really doesn't tell you much. Either chip can only complete and retire about 3 instructions per cycle.

As for why MHz for MHz Athlons are faster, it's due to the pipeline depth. Athlons have 10 pipeline stages (or 15 for FP), while the P4 has 20. Since an instruction is pretty much the same on either chip, that just means a little bit less work gets done on a P4 stage than an Athlon stage. It takes 20 cycles to complete an instruction on a P4, but maybe ~12 on an Athlon. That's neither good nor bad, just a difference in the architecture.
 

skahtul

Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Location
SLC
It all comes down to the fact AMD gets done more every clock cycle. But as mentioned above, that will change. I bet pure GHz will eventually close the gap (though I would not want to buy a top of the line P4 because of price)
 

Hawk

Member
Joined
May 9, 2002
Location
Portland OR.
OC-Master said:
Simple!

Clock for clock, the AMD system will always be faster than the Intel system because AMD's current line of CPUs can do 9 intructions per clock cycle where as Intel CPUs do only six intructions per clock cycle!

1 clock cycle = 1Hz 1000Hz = 1KHz 1000KHz = 1MHz 1000MHz = 1GHz


OC-Master
WOW! "always" is a long time.
 

Goo Kenson

Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2002
In the computing world, a few years is plenty long enough for a tradition to be made. Top of the line, $15000 systems have crumbled and fell at the feet of what we now call bargain budget chips in the space of only a few years. Traditions, traditions.
 

ThePunkGeek

Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2001
Location
Ontario Canada
ya it like comparing them junk 4 bangers to real domestic chevy horsepower.

EluSiOn said:
in lame men's term...... compare cpu to car engine....


mhz or ghz is the unit to measure how fast a cpu cycles, like car engine's rpm.

However, performance is measure by bench marks, or a car's horse power...

Both Honda Civic' engine and a BMW M3's engine can rotate at 5000 rpm, but it doesn't mean both engine can produce same amount of horse power.

Like IBM & Motorola's PowerPC G4 CPU, it only runs 1GHZ but it beats Intel's P4 in performance. Like Intel's top server CPU Intel® Itanium® 2 which also running at 1 GHZ. Conclusion: mhz doesn't mean anything.

It is all about chip design. RISC proccessor vs CISC proccess. AMD design is a RISC proccessor which emulates x86 CISC processing.

*RISC: reduced instruction set computing
*CISC: complex instruction set computing

Intel P4 has not yet show its true power as most of application have not yet take the advantage of hyper threading. (like one die but two cpu running) which a cpu can calculate both float point calculation and also integer calculation.

However, if you like CPU design, take a look at IBM & Motorola's design... their G4 has one extra unit which is devote to vector calcuation.
 

Anaxagoras1986

Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2002
skahtul said:
though I would not want to buy a top of the line P4 because of price

I hear ye! I would get a P4 just to try it out because I have never had an Intel machine. My brother has a celeron and that thying is terrible, luckily I bought him a 1.2 T-bird. The prices of those P4s are just so REDICULOUS !!
 

mbentley

Gloriously Lead, Overclockix Chief Architect
Joined
Sep 26, 2002
Location
Indianapolis, IN
Anaxagoras1986 said:


I hear ye! I would get a P4 just to try it out because I have never had an Intel machine. My brother has a celeron and that thying is terrible, luckily I bought him a 1.2 T-bird. The prices of those P4s are just so REDICULOUS !!

well yeah the celeron is going to be "junk" that is because it's the ghetto piii's and p4's :) it's just the cheaper version that has the speed label but not the power to back it up. i would be happy running both intel or amd. as long as it processes, it's cool with me ;)
 

Yodums

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2001
Location
Ottawa, Canada
It totally depends on what you want. I still think Intel has the upper hand. Bang of the buck, go for the 1700+ T-Bred. If you got cash then why complain and go all out? Their CPU Benchmarks are about the same however Intel's bandwidth greatly over ride's AMD which really helps the CPU.

I personally went AMD because bang of the buck and now resulted me in folding pretty fast however, with the new Gromacs core the P4 will be even faster now.

Intel is getting real crazy with the overclocking too. 1700mhz overclock from a 1.8a from our forum member.

http://forum.oc-forums.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=137751

But the nForce 2 has me curious.... I'm not very fond of Via.